BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut architectural expert witnessFairfield Connecticut window expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction forensic expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessesFairfield Connecticut reconstruction expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Expert Builders Information
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Connecticut Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: Case law precedent


    Building Expert Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Fairfield Connecticut

    License required for electrical and plumbing trades. No state license for general contracting, however, must register with the State.


    Building Expert Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders & Remo Assn of Fairfield Co
    Local # 0780
    433 Meadow St
    Fairfield, CT 06824

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Builders Association of Eastern Connecticut
    Local # 0740
    20 Hartford Rd Suite 18
    Salem, CT 06420

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of New Haven Co
    Local # 0720
    2189 Silas Deane Highway
    Rocky Hill, CT 06067

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Hartford Cty Inc
    Local # 0755
    2189 Silas Deane Hwy
    Rocky Hill, CT 06067

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of NW Connecticut
    Local # 0710
    110 Brook St
    Torrington, CT 06790

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Connecticut (State)
    Local # 0700
    3 Regency Dr Ste 204
    Bloomfield, CT 06002

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10


    Building Expert News and Information
    For Fairfield Connecticut


    Appeals Court Rules that CGL Policy Doesn’t Cover Subcontractors’ Faulty Work

    California Supreme Court Declines to Create Exception to Privette Doctrine for “Known Hazards”

    Pool Contractor’s Assets Frozen over Construction Claims

    Firm Claims Construction Defects in Hawaiian Homes

    East Coast Evaluates Damage After Fast-Moving 'Bomb Cyclone'

    BHA Sponsors 28th Annual Construction Law Conference in San Antonio, TX

    Why Construction Law- An Update

    Insurer's Motion in Limine to Dismiss Case for Lack of Expert Denied

    Arizona Court Affirms Homeowners’ Association’s Right to Sue Over Construction Defects

    New 2021 ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey Standards Effective February 23, 2021

    Hotel Owner Makes Construction Defect Claim

    A Landlord’s Guide to California’s New Statewide Rent Control Laws

    Insurer Must Defend Claims of Negligence and Private Nuisance

    Part II: Key Provisions of School Facility Construction & Design Contracts

    Insured's Failure to Prove Entire Collapse of Building Leads to Dismissal

    Utilities’ Extreme Plan to Stop Wildfires: Shut Off the Power

    Builders Beware: Smart Homes Under Attack by “Hide ‘N Seek” Botnet

    Penalty for Failure to Release Expired Liens

    Stay of Coverage Case Appropriate While Court Determines Arbitrability of Dispute

    Happenings in and around the West Coast Casualty Seminar

    UPDATE: Texas Federal Court Permanently Enjoins U.S. Department of Labor “Persuader Rule” Requiring Law Firms and Other Consultants to Disclose Work Performed for Employers on Union Organization Efforts

    Sanctions of $1.6 Million Plus Imposed on Contractor for Fabricating Evidence

    The Future of Construction Work with Mark Ehrlich

    Court Finds That Limitation on Conditional Use Permit Results in Covered Property Damage Due to Loss of Use

    Predicting Our Future with Andrew Weinreich

    Renovation Makes Old Arena Feel Brand New

    Am I Still Covered Under the Title Insurance Policy?

    Let’s Talk About a Statutory First-Party Bad Faith Claim Against an Insurer

    Brown Orders Mandatory Water Curbs for California Drought

    DHS Awards Contracts for Border Wall Prototypes

    Florida’s Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    Not So Universal Design Fails (guest post)

    The Role of Code Officials in the Design-Build Process

    Mid-Session Overview of Colorado’s 2017 Construction Defect Legislation

    Fast-Moving Isaias Dishes Out Disruption in the Mid-Atlantic, Northeast

    The Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter – A Year in Review

    Ninth Circuit Affirms Duty to Defend CERCLA Section 104 (e) Letter

    Water Backup Payment Satisfies Insurer's Obligation to Cover for Rain Damage

    California Court of Appeal Holds That the Right to Repair Act Prohibits Class Actions Against Manufacturers of Products Completely Manufactured Offsite

    It’s Getting Harder and Harder to be a Concrete Supplier in California

    Florida SB 2022-736: Construction Defect Claims

    Court’s Ruling on SB800 “Surprising to Some”

    Colorado Senate Bill 13-052 Dies in Committee

    BHA Attending the Construction Law Conference in San Antonio, Texas

    Apartment Construction Increasing in Colorado while Condo Construction Remains Slow

    Freight Train Carrying Hot Asphalt, Molten Sulfur Plunges Into Yellowstone River as Bridge Fails

    Rulemaking to Modernize, Expand DOI’s “Type A” Natural Resource Damage Assessment Rules Expected Fall 2023

    Wisconsin Supreme Court Abandons "Integrated Systems Analysis" for Determining Property Damage

    California Supreme Court Declines Request to Expand Exceptions to Privette Doctrine for Known Hazards

    If I Released My California Mechanics Lien, Can I File a New Mechanics Lien on the Same Project? Will the New Mechanics Lien be Enforceable?
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Colorado Supreme Court Rules that Developers Retain Perpetual Control over Construction Defect Covenants

    June 21, 2017 —
    The Colorado Supreme Court ruled today that developers can retain control over community covenants in perpetuity by recording a covenant that requires declarant consent to any amendments. Although the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA) states that such controls should be void, the court nevertheless ruled that a declarant may veto amendments that alter the dispute resolution procedures for construction defect actions at any time. The case of Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominium Ass’n v. Metropolitan Homes, Inc., __ P.3d __, 15CO508, arose when the community’s members discovered widespread construction defects. When the declarant developed the project, it had recorded a declaration of covenants that purported to waive the homeowners’ right to a jury trial and instead require that any construction defect disputes be resolved by a private arbitration panel. The declaration also prohibited the homeowners from recovering attorney fees and costs, and it limited the declarant’s liability for damages. Consistent with CCIOA, the declaration allowed the homeowners to amend their covenants by a 67% vote, but it recited that the declarant could veto any such amendment prior to the sale of the last unit to a homeowner. The covenants further stated that the declarant must consent to any amendment that altered the construction defect restrictions. Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic Witt Mr. Witt may be contacted at www.witt.law Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New Jersey Legislation Would Bar Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause in Homeowners' Policies

    June 08, 2020 —
    A bill prohibiting the use of anti-concurrent causation clauses in homeowners' insurance policies has been introduced before the New Jersey legislature. The bill is here. Under an anti-concurrent causation clause, the policy bars coverage if two perils (i.e., wind and water damage) contribute to a loss and one peril is excluded from coverage. For example, wind damage alone may be covered, while water damage is excluded. If both wind and water contribute to the loss, regardless of the degree to which each peril contributes, the anti-concurrent causation clause would bar coverage. New Jersey S 217 states,
    An insurer authorized to transact the business of homeowners insurance in this state shall not exclude coverage in a homeowners insurance policy for loss or damage caused by a peril insured against under the terms of the policy on the grounds that the loss or damage occurred concurrently or in any sequence with a peril not insured against under the terms of the policy. Any such provision to exclude coverage shall be void and unenforceable.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Construction Defect Reform Bill Passes Colorado Senate

    April 15, 2015 —
    The Denver Business Journal reported that a construction defect reform bill has “passed the Colorado Senate by a 24-11 vote Tuesday, with six Democrats joining all 18 Republicans in the chamber in backing the measure.” The bill now moves to the House. According to the Denver Business Journal, the bill “faces a tougher path in the House, where Speaker Dickey Lee Hullinghorst, D-Gunbarrel, has said she was not going to support a bill that does not include a provision giving aggrieved condominium owners the right to take their disputes with builders to court. No such amendment was added in the Senate.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Naughty or Nice. Contractor Receives Two Lumps of Coal in Administrative Dispute

    January 21, 2019 —
    So, how were your holidays? Hopefully you were good and didn’t receive a lump of coal from Santa. For one contractor, 2018, wasn’t such a good year. And as its name, Black Diamond, suggests, it did indeed receive a black diamond from the courts. Actually, two of them. Contractors’ State License Board v. Superior Court (Black Diamond No. 1) In Contractors’ State License Board v. Superior Court, Court of Appeals for the First District, Case No. 1154476 (October 11, 2018), the Contractors State License Board (“CSLB”) brought disciplinary proceedings against Black Diamond Electric, Inc. (“Black Diamond”), a C-10 Electrical Contractor, for violating: (1) Labor Code section 108.2, which requires individuals performing work as electricians to be certified; and (2) Labor Code section 108.4, which permits uncertified persons seeking on-the-job experience to perform electrical work so long as they are under the direct supervision of a certified electrician. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    AB 1701 – General Contractor Liability for Subcontractors’ Unpaid Wages

    December 01, 2017 —
    Contractors will soon find themselves on the frontline of wage disputes on projects if laborers working on behalf of their subcontractors or vendors are unpaid. On October 14, 2017, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law AB 1701, which will allow laborers to seek direct compensation from the general contractors on private projects, if their wages remain unpaid. The legislative mandate requires direct contractors—defined as contractors who have a direct contractual relationship with an owner—to assume liability for any debt incurred by a subcontractor, at any tier, for a wage claimant’s performance of labor included in the subject of the original contract between the general contractor and the owner. The California bill will apply to all private construction contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2018. Previously, all laborers could maintain a mechanic’s lien claim against private property, without needing to serve a 20-day preliminary notice, but there was no statutory obligation on the “direct contractors” to reimburse the laborers their unpaid wages. Reprinted courtesy of Peckar & Abramson, P.C. attorneys Alex Baghdassarian, Eric M. Gruzen and Kerri Sakaue Mr. Baghdassarian may be contacted at abaghdassarian@pecklaw.com Mr. Gruzen may be contacted at egruzen@pecklaw.com Ms. Sakaue may be contacted at ksakaue@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New World Cup Stadiums Failed at their First Trial

    March 12, 2014 —
    Problems abounded at the inaugural match at one of the new World Cup stadiums in Manaus, Brazil, reported The News Tribune. Problems also were reported at the Arena da Amazonia. Bathrooms weren’t completed, roofs leaked, and some fans were sold tickets for seats that didn’t exist. Furthermore “construction material could be seen in some places and many wheelchair fans had difficulties accessing their seats.” "This is a critical point that needs to be reevaluated, it can't happen again," said Miguel Capobiango, one of the officials in charge of World Cup preparations in Manaus, as quoted by The News Tribune. "But this is why we have these test events." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    World Cup May Pull Out of Brazil because of Construction Delays

    January 28, 2014 —
    Back in October of last year, CNN reported that a judge suspended construction at one of the stadiums being built for this summer’s World Cup in Brazil. The judge stated that the dangers for construction workers included "being buried, run over, falling from heights and being hit by material, among other serious risks,” according to CNN. Recently, the Los Angeles Times reported that FIFA is threatening to pull out of Brazil because of construction delays: “We cannot organize a match without a stadium,” Jerome Valcke, FIFA’s secretary general, as quoted in the Los Angeles Times. “This has reached a critical point.” The deadline for completion of the 12 World Cup stadiums was January 1st, but various delays—including “fatal construction accidents at stadiums in Sao Paulo, Brasilia, and Manaus” as well as worker walk offs over pay—forced FIFA to “relax” the deadline. Read the full story at CNN... Read the full story at the Los Angeles Times... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Playing Hot Potato: Indemnity Strikes Again

    September 17, 2015 —
    Indemnity can be like playing hot potato (for those of you closer to the Minecraft generation, in the game of hot potato, a metaphoric “hot potato” is tossed between (ahem amongst) players while music is playing, and when the music stops, the player holding the hot potato is out. It’s a barrel of monkeys, trust me.). Anyway, like hot potato, with indemnity an owner typically requires its general contractor to indemnify the owner (sometimes the property owner in TI projects and occasionally design professionals) from and against any and all claims arising out of, related to . . . blah, blah, blah . . . the general contractor’s scope of work . A general contractor in turn will usually require indemnity from its subcontractors. And subcontractors will require indemnity from their sub-subcontractors. And down the line it goes with each party pointing their finger at the next party down the proverbial “food chain.” But it doesn’t always happen that way as the next case, American Title Insurance Company v. Spanish Inn, Case No D067137, California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District (August 14, 2015), illustrates. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com